 MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE |
| JURIST >> LEGAL NEWS - WORLD LAW >> Discussion >> Milosevic Trial Discussion Archive |
—————————————————————————————
Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic is on trial for war crimes in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia at The Hague. This marks the first time a head of state has been personally prosecuted before an international criminal court.
Is Slobodan Milosevic getting a fair trial?
————————————————————————————
NOTICE: Comments posted to this discussion board are solely the responsibility of individual posters, and not of JURIST, its owner, operators, host or staff. JURIST reserves the right to block or remove posts that are in violation of law or that advocate illegal acts, that are obscene, disruptive, defamatory, threatening, harassing or abusive, that are in breach of intellectual property rights, rights of publicity or rights of privacy, that are advertisements or solicitations, or that are not related to the topic being discussed.
————————————————————————————
- discussion archive
- Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 12:39 am
Today is liable to be an interesting day in Serbia. Natasa Micic (the acting Serbian President and Speaker of the Serbian Parliament) is facing a no-confidence motion. If Micic loses then she will be replaced by the Deputy Speaker who is Ljubisa Maravic of the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS).The DSS, SRS, SSJ, SPS and The Vojvodina Coalition are all expected to vote for the dismissal of Ms. Micic.
Mr. Maravic is the chairman of the Kosovska Mitrovica Socialists. I met him when I was in Belgrade, I spoke with him for 2 hours, and he is a good guy.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 12:56 am
I found the following post at Free Republic. The writer refers to the IWPR report. I have wondered about the same thing. The IWPR report stands alone. The news article below simply quotes a story about Momir Nikolic's testimony BEFORE IWPR came out with the story that Nikolic confessed to lying. Did ANYBODY see the actual testimony?Quote: What's going on? I just read this article on the web:
Top brass planned Srebrenica massacre
Detailed accounts given to war crimes tribunal counter denials from Bosnian Serbs
Sunday, October 12, 2003It's by Marlise Simons of the NYT. It ignores the article published on this page that records the fact that Momir Nikolic lied. If this IWPR report is factual why is it completely ignored?
Nikole J
Canada - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 1:04 am
Nikole: Why was the expulsion of 20,000 Serbs from Mostar and the murders of hundreds more, completely ignored? Don't expect these media liars to reform their ways once the wars are over. They have to spawn new lies to cover up the old ones.
P M
USA - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 4:44 am
GogolRegarding your comment on the contributor: Random Integers.
I understand that the poster is pointing out contradictions and that contradictions imply nonesense.
But it is the numbering system which defeats my imagination. Do you have any clue as to the signifcance of numbering system - if any?
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 4:45 am
Why on earth does a mother fukcer needs a crutch to be obscene?
1 2
3
4 - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 4:49 am
Why does obscenity need a crutch to become a mother fukcer?
1 1
2
2 - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 5:15 am
Because the irate father admonished his blaspheming daughter thus:"Stop Your @!*??!@ swearing."
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 7:37 am
"Do you want us to grasp your intelligent qoutations? In which case you are very naive."
3 4
Canada - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 7:43 am
"Owen, who got to know Karadzic and his methods well during thirty-two months as the European Union's chief mediator in the Balkans, is not prepared to say whether the Bosnian Serb leader is a war criminal. Such a determination, he believes, is for the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague to make." Roger Cohen
1 2
Canada - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 9:03 am
Wait a minute! The Chamber can't call a witness on the "Prosecution's" behalf! If they want their own witnesses, then they should WAIT until the "Prosecution" AND Milosevic have finished calling their own witnesses. If neither the "Prosecution" nor Milosevic call whoever the Chamber would like to hear from, then they may want a witness to clarify certain things they are unsure of on completion of the "Prosecution" and Defence cases.The Chamber calling witnesses precludes Milosevic or the "Prosecution" from calling the same witnesses on their own behalf and at the time most advantageous to themselves.
Another example of INTERFERING with the rights of an accused! Prejudicing the accused's case. Does this smack of a mistrial process? If they're lucky, they'll call a mistrial and keep Milosevic in a cage for another 5 years. Never mind whether he's guilty or not! Now that's HUMANITARIANISM and New World Order justice for you. Guilty until proven innocent!
It seems the Chamber is now even more blatantly acting as the "Prosecution" too. Outrageous!!!! Where are all the international lawyers to complain about such travesties, where are Mr Kay and Mr Tapuskovic to object about YET ANOTHER bastardisation of the legal process by the bastards in red?
David
Oztralia - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 9:48 am
"A Trial Chamber may order either party to produce additional evidence. It may proprio motu summon witnesses and order their attendance."
A O
Canada - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 10:24 am
The Americans have spent billions of dollars financing NGOs which were set-up solely to discredit target nations and to prepare them for American military occupation.These NGOs employ tens of thousands of youthful and enthusiastic supporters of the American Empire and they are not usually slow in coming forward with their opinions.
Why then are none of these bright young things present on this Discussion site?
Until the recent arrival of Random Integers we had no spokesman for America’s New World Order.
Is there no one out there willing to defend the Hague Carry-On?
Michael Thomas
London
UK - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 10:51 am
Dear mr. Jovanovic (the physicist),I too am interested in the broader picture, - and so are many on this Forum, I believe.
If however "Srebrenica" (or whatever) has got "nothing to do with Milosevic" then that subject maybe should not be allowed to dominate this "web-discussion", - or the ICTY "trial" in the Hague?
I wonder why you, who lived in the US for the last 50 years, would "accept the guilt" for any massacre in Srebrenica? Thus you would support the demonization of "the Serbs" (as a block!), would't you?
I do agree with you though: "Srebrenica" has got nothing to do with mr. Milosevic,(while "Racak" has got everything to do with the (then) FRY President, - who through his cross-examinations of key-witnesses for the Prosecution, such as Ambassador Walker (on 12 June, 2003) has been able to demonstrate, that the charges against him are mere fabrications).
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 10:58 am
Ambassador William Walker, the CIA-man heading the OSCE´s KVM up to the war against Serbia in 1999, was heard (and cross-examined!) in The Hague on 11-12 June, 2002 (not this year as I erroneously wrote above).
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 11:19 am
Surprised the Chamber (pot) is calling Lord Owen to the witnesss stand?
Remember once the prossecution is done presenting its case there will be a: A. amici curiae motion to dismiss or B. Slobodan Milosevic motion to ismiss or C. The Trial Chamber (all pots) dismissal of the case for not finding enough evidence to continue wiht the show trial.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 11:53 am
To Nikole J,
Re: Nikolic's perjury & media coverageThe NY Times article does mention the fact that Nikolic lied about being present in a certain alleged massacre. However, as is typical of articles in the NY Times (and of Marlise Simons in particular), it dishonestly and hypocritically downplays and excuses Nikolic's revealing lie. What is pleasantly surprising in the media coverage of this case is the honesty of the IWPR article.
If the Blagojevic trial was held in a real court of law, Nikolic would have been disqualified and perjury proceedings would be in motion. In any case, Nikolic will be shred to pieces if he dares to show his face in the Milosevic trial.
Pythagoras C
Greece - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 12:16 pm
Just so everybody can read it:
Key Srebrenica Witness Apologises for Lies
Defence lawyer presses Bosnian Serb officer on admission that he lied.
By Chris Stephen in The Hague (TU 327, 04 October 2003)
A key Srebrenica prosecution witness apologised to the Hague tribunal this week about lying in a statement to prosecutors. Momir Nikolic, a former Bosnian Serb army intelligence officer, made history after he gave evidence against his former colleagues about the Srebrenica killings in a plea agreement deal with prosecutors, reached in May this year. In exchange for pleading guilty to crimes against humanity, and for cooperating, prosecutors are pressing for a lighter sentence limited to 20 years. Nikolic, 48, originally gave a signed statement telling prosecutors he ordered the worst massacre at Srebrenica - the slaughter of 1,000 unarmed Muslims at a warehouse in Kravica, as well as a second execution at Sandici. “I did not tell the truth when I said that,” he told the court on September 29. “Afterwards I said I had made a mistake, I had lied.” “I apologise. All I can do is confess and say that the discussion about the crime is a very difficult situation to be in.” He admitted to the lies on May 6, in a statement to prosecutors which was released to the public last week. He also said he had lied about a second claim that he had been the man in a photograph shown him by prosecutors. His guilty plea statement to the court, also dated May 6, did not contain these untruths. Nikolic is now giving evidence against Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic, two fellow Bosnian Serb officers accused of crimes against humanity and violation of the laws and customs of war. The issue of Nikolic’s earlier lies came up under cross-examination from the defence this week. ”You took some information which you knew to be true, and incorporated that information into the falsehood in order to give your story more believability?” said defence lawyer Michael Kavanas. “No,” said Nikolic. In his May statement to prosecutors, Nikolic said, “I initially falsely stated that I was the person in a photograph depicting a soldier in the area of Sandici, when in truth I was not the person depicted in the photograph.” “In addition I initially falsely stated to the prosecution that I had ordered executions at Sandici and the Kravica warehouse on July 13, 1995, when in fact I had not issued such orders.” “Shortly after making these false statements - and as discussions with the prosecution continued - I voluntarily informed my lawyers and the prosecution that I had made false statements,” said his statement. “I think we should call it for what it is, a bald-faced lie,” said Karnavas, an American lawyer. In the original statement, Nikolic said he had seen former army officer Ljubomir Borovcanin at the Kravica warehouse. “You needed to give him [the prosecutor] something he did not have, right?” said Karnavas. “You wanted to limit your time of imprisonment to 20 years, that was part of the arrangement, yes? Quid pro quo?” “I’m still a little bit confused,” continued Karnavas. “How is it that you thought by admitting to one of the most horrendous executions in this area, that this would help you in getting the kind of sentence that you are hoping and praying for?” “I wanted the agreement to succeed,” said the witness. Karnavas pressed on, “Did you think that by falsely admitting to having ordered this execution that you were solving a question-mark in the prosecutor’s case as to who had ordered that murder?” Nikolic told the court that although he was not present, he was sure Borovcanin had been there. “You implicated Borovcanin in your falsehood in order to make your story move convincing so that the prosecutor would buy it?” said Karnavas. “You needed to give him [the prosecutor] some more facts to sweeten the deal, that’s why you provided false information about Kravica?” Nikolic went on to deny that anyone but himself had been involved in the fabrication. “Your lawyers had a laundry list of factors that the prosecutor was expected to agree to?” asked the lawyer. “The prosecution did not exert any influence on me,” replied Nikolic. “What I did is my own mistake.” He told the court that although he was a captain, he would sometimes claim to be a major when attending meetings with United Nations troops in the Srebrenica area. “You stated that part of your profession required you to use deceptive measures as an intelligence officer,” said Karnavas. “Do you understand how critically important it is for you to tell the whole truth? That had been part of the agreement that you had reached with the prosecutors - that you would testify truthfully and tell the whole truth?” Karnavas then asked the witness about his past employment record. Nikolic said he had left the army and became an official with a local company, but was made redundant when it was privatised. “Do you wish to supplement any more regarding that?” said Karnavas, who showed the court a document in which Nikolic’s employer declared that Nikolic’s employment was terminated on November 25, 2000. “What I’m interested to know is why you have failed to inform us that you were fired. Not that after privatisation you were unemployed but that you were fired.” “That is absolutely not true,” said Nikolic. The case continues. Chris Stephen is IWPR’s tribunal project manage
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 12:28 pm
The NYT:
During lengthy cross-examination a defense lawyer for Col. Vidoje Blagojevic challenged Mr. Nikolic's credibility, reminding him of a lie. He said that earlier this year, when negotiating a plea agreement with prosecutors, Mr. Nikolic confessed to his role in Srebrenica but also claimed a role in another massacre at which he was not present. Before the agreement was completed, he retracted that statement.
NYT gutter press!
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 12:31 pm
B-92 is broadcasting the Milosevic "trial," but they are not broadcasting it live in Serbia. They are instead airing prerecorded excerpts.For example, they were broadcasting General Smith's testimony today, but it was Milan Milanovic who was actually at the Hague Testifying today.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 12:43 pm
Wise words from the inaugural Chief ProsecutorBut did he really believe in them or was he uttering just more political bullshit:
If you look at the Nuremberg record, the main Nuremberg trial and the subsequent trial, you'll find that the great bulk of evidence was documentary, not eye witness, not human beings giving evidence. There were no documents that established guilt. Either they weren't brought into existence or, more frequently, they'd been shredded or they weren't available to us. So we had to rely more on human beings as witnesses. That's a good thing, incidentally. I think it's a blessing in disguise because it meant that we had to deal with individuals and present the evidence of individuals so voices of victims were heard. Now that makes a much bigger impression on the public than some cold document being handed up.
Nuremberg: now that’s a nice little word association when only Serbs have appeared in The Hague courtrooms over Kosovo. So who listens to the voices of the victims of the KLA terrorists in the absence - during the past four years - of any of their top leaders at The Hague: Some three to four thousand victims of KLA murder, their relatives and a quarter of million displaced persons for starters? And what’s that about a PR exercise, about impressing the public. What’s that got to do with Justice especially in a one sided trial?
I was given history lessons before every meeting began and told about the terrible things that happened to Serbs at the Battle of Kosovo and, more recently, at the hands of the Ustase who were collaborating with the Nazis in Serbia and Croatia. Justice has never been done, nobody has ever been brought to accounts. So these were terrible feelings of unrequited calls for justice, and anger, frustration. It brought home to me the importance of breaking that cycle by making public at least what happened now, so that the victims get their acknowledgment.
What exactly did happen when some three to four thousand people became murder victims of the KLA: Why is there no accounting for the victims of KLA violence: “Breaking that cycle” by blaming it all on the Serbs: that’s Justice?
It's important too to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again. It's important too to see that people who shouldn't be holding public positions are kicked out of public positions.
If it is so important how is it that KLA terrorist leaders are now prominent members of Kosovo’s parliament and one runs their police force: A police force, the KPC, formed from the KLA whose members carry out acts of terror even in neighbouring states such Macedonia and Serbia.
I've learned that we're dealing with criminals, international criminals who order murders and rapes and ethnic cleansing.
But the leaders of the KLA are absolved?
I don’t know about the muck being spread here but I do know that Justice is based on Truth and Impartiality.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 1:14 pm
I've been told here that the accusations against Vojislav Seselj are unsubstantiated, hear-say etc.
Arandjel said that he read the the SRS programme finding nothing fascist there. Well, Arandjele, look what sort of material Seselj gave to one of the most zelous Serb-haters:
http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/reports/srpclean1.htm
This is an excerpt from SRS programme declaration, just don't tell me there's nothing fascist there.
You see, Arandjele, what kind of a nut case was I talking about earlier. Would you defend such man as a Serbian patriot or reject him as a traitor? Can't you see that he always proudly confirmed everything what the western media blamed us for? I'm sure you're familiar with Draskovic's claim that Seselj is a Croat and working for their secret service (Draskovic and Seselj originate from the same town).
The Hague tribunal's case of Greater Serbia against Milosevic is completely based on Seselj's programme.
Ana, you mentioned how everything against Seselj is hear-say, but I'm sure you are familiar with the details of a war crimes trial in Belgrade against the group of Milan Lukic which ended few days ago... The accused people from that group in their testimony said that they came to Bosnia as members of SRS and as volunteers. In eastern Bosnia they looted and killed Muslims for few days, and then returned to Serbia, and after a while again came back to loot and kill, which means they weren't fighting at all against the jihad warriors, but murdered and looted innocent civilians. They didn't come to Bosnia to defend Serbs from Islamic fanatics but to kill civilians. Seselj organized a paramilitary group called "White Eagles" which did all those things all over eastern Bosnia.
The prosecution case against Milosevic about agression on Bosnia from Serbia is mostly based on the fact that volunteers from Serbia came to fight in Bosnia. Following that logic I could say that Bosnia was also invaded by Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Afganistan, Malasya, Indonesia, Egypt, Syria, Algeria... by every islamic country in the world that sent their holy warriors to kill Christians and create a pure Muslim state in the middle of Europe, but of course presidents of those countries are not in Hague. And what about U.S. army advizers who trained the Muslim army, or neo-nazis from all over western europe who fought on Croatian side?
1 2 from Canada quoted from http://slate.msn.com/id/25826/ :
"...Serbia's Jews fared much worse than most European Jews. Nazis exterminated more than 90 percent of Serbia's 15,000 Jews, the women and children at a camp right outside Belgrade. Serbs did not resist or protest this slaughter."
For the sake of the people ignorant about Serbian history, which 1 2 from Canada certainly is, the above quote should be clarified.
The above quote is a typical case of anti-Serb propaganda which takes facts out of context and puts them in a totally different context.
The "camp right outside Belgrade" was the Sajmiste camp in Zemun, at that time territory of NDH - the nazi Croat state. More than 80 000 people were killed there by Germans THEMSELVES. If we know that about 10 000 Jews were killed there, the rest of the victims are 70 000 Serbs.
So with this intentionally left out piece of information the author writes the next sentence: "Serbs did not resist or protest this slaughter."
How is this possible? SEVEN TIMES MORE Serbs were killed in the same camp than Jews. So how were they supposed to "resist or protest this slaughter" when they were being slaughtered themselves? Maybe they should have demanded from the Germans to kill more Serbs?
Next quote: "Philip Cohen's Serbia's Secret War (click to buy the book) argues that Serbs cooperated with Nazis in the slaughter of Jews and were deeply anti-Semitic."
Philip J. Cohen is a Jewish American physician (not a historian), and he didn't even write that book, he just compiled the bunch of texts given to him by Croatian government. When his book was available for sale, the Croatian government officials distributed it for free to diplomats in United Nations general assembly. Cohen is, simply, an intelectual mercenary and his book Croat propaganda.
pantelija damjanovic
bosnia and herzegovina - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 1:38 pm
Gogol -- there's a twist to the story by Marlise Simons of the NYT -- the story that I cited was by Marlise Simons of the NYT -- BUT -- it was published in the San Francisco Chronicle October 12. The SF Chronicle article doesn't carry the paragraph you quote. I haven't compared all the articles on the topic.Justice Goldstone's statements are absolutely chilling. The credibility of Nuremberg was that the Nazis had documented their crimes. The documents are more powerful than the witnesses. And here's this "justice" saying it's great that they have witnesses not documents!
Nikole J
Canada - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 3:12 pm
Nüremberg, regardless of the extent of the Nazi crimes was no better than the ICTY. Both were born after the facts, in the secrets boards rooms of London and Washington, by only the powerful parties. In Nüremberg's case the charges made the Nazi party a criminal enterprise (!) from the onset prior to the coming to power in 1933. The rules during the trial were draconian, the Germans could not claim in defending their actions that the allies were doing the very same things with the exception of Admiral who was able to call to his defence an American admiral who vindicated him.
Nüremberg lasted roughly 6-7 months and more than 16 defendants were tried. The ICTY is already over two years with Mr. Milosevic and plans another two years before it is over.
And let me point out one important fact: never during the war did the allies issued any warning to the Nazi leadership, that they were going to be held legally responsible for their crimes.
Tokyo? Another whimsical farce of international justice as delivered by the victor.
Does the World needs International JUSTICE? Yes! Equal for all and with book open for all to see, before, during and after the crimes: the INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT from which only the criminal nations run away !
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 5:01 pm
Hi Does anybody know if is possible to access the day in tribunal when Milosevic had shown video of how the famouse picture of "starved" people behind the barbed wire (in Trnopolje "concentration camp") had been made? I have tried to look in tribunal archives on Freeserbia, Domovina Net and Bard, but unsuccessfuly. Alternatively if anybody has got saved copy on a cd I would compensate the expenses of posting a copy to me, with a huge appreciation :-) Thanks
novica golubovic
uk - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 5:03 pm
Mr. Godfred Louis-Jensen,It is hard to me to explain in the legalistic terms an issue which to me is an emotional one. Although I do not believe in the “collective guilt” I find though that there may be some ethnic traits in various ethnic groups.
For instance, Germans do have a high level of respect for “law and order”. Hence if the government issues an order to imprison all the Jews, they obey. Some may have opposing view but they all obey.
In WWII Croatians , namely Ustashe, issued an order to exterminate the Serbs. In their centuries long contact with Austrohungarian Empire the Croatians were used to imitate the Germans. And they did.
Serbs never had such upbringing. The Serbs were five centuries under the Turks. Thus I believe that it would be hard for a Serbs to execute en mass some 7000 civilian. It is not an accident that a convicted ( now released ) executioner was Croat Erdemovic.
Hence, on strictly emotional level I would feel guilty if I learned that some individuals of my ethnicity calmly issued an order and then executed it- killing some 7000 men and boys who they separated from their families.
D. Jovanovic, physicist
USA - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 5:05 pm
OOoops I thought my email address would be automatically displayed :-) email:ngolubovic@msn.com
novica golubovic
uk - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 6:52 pm
Pantelija:I agree with you at a certain point. When I listened to the testimony of Mr. Donia, and if the minutes and transcripts of the meetings of the Bosnian Serb parliament are not fabrications, then certainly they might suggest a fascist agenda. The repeated use of the word "Serbian" in front of a number of place names, such as Dalmatia, Dubrovnik, Kosovo, etc., particularly those in which the Serbian population was very small, does smack of rabid chauvinism at best if not fascism.
This is unfortunate, not only for the people they sought to represent, but for Serbia as well. The idiots who made statements of that kind, and Biljana is first among them, did far more detriment to their cause than good. Unfortunately, these charges are being laid against Milosevic, whom I think it would be absurd to call a fascist, or on a plan of a so-called Greater Serbia.
Regarding Milan Lukic, you have to keep in mind that he was not sent as part of some army. Serbia never sent an army into Croatia and Bosnia to commit atrocities. However, volunteers did go. Milosevic has more to answer for his insufficient investigation into the behavior of these volunteers, rather than some grand plan engineered by his government. Because if you use this criterion, the criterion that merely assistance to the Bosnian Serbs in the form of aid, money, food, weapons, etc. constitutes a war crime, then all the leaders of the USA, UK, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Greece, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and many other countries, should be sitting in the Hague. They are not. Therein lies the problem.
P M
USA` - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 7:39 pm
"The suppression of the Albanian separatist insurgence in Kosovo and Metohija by all available means, and in order to the relapse of that insurgence impossible, we are pledged to an immediate implementation of the following measures:...
"- to expel without delay all 360 thousand Albanian emigrants and their descendants,"
"all 360 thousand"
1 2
Canada - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 7:43 pm
"Serb State in the Balkans, to enfold the integral Serbhood, all Serb lands, which means that within its boundaries it shall have, in addition to the present granted (octroyee) Serbian federal unit, the Serb Macedonia, the Serb Montenegro, the Serb Bosnia, the Serb Herzegovina, the Serb Dubrovnik, the Serb Dalmatia, the Serb Lika, the Serb Kordun, the Serb Banija, the Serb Slavonia, and the Serb Baranja.(...)"
1 2
Canada - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 8:07 pm
About 4 hours ago I emailed the MODERATOR of this forum requesting that it be maintained regularly. That is, please ARCHIVE older POSTS. I am again dropping into cybercafes to keep up. The discussion is alive when all can read.
Nikole J
Canada - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 8:16 pm
Nuremberg was implemented to prosecute Nazis that commited all kinds of crimes all over Europe . The ICTY was implemented to prosecute President Milosevic , for his defense of his country from extremism and terrorism inside his own borders and something he will never be forgiven for , making the invisible visible and keeping it for display . That can't be taken from him .
M P
Rep de Panama - Wednesday October 15, 2003 at 12:25 am
October 14th at the Milosevic "trial":http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg101403.htm
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Wednesday October 15, 2003 at 5:56 am
Do I want to bet on it? asks Peter Taylor (October 13, 2003 at 12:45 pm) - "it" being whether mr. Milosevic is eventually aquitted.Well, no, - I don't! My presentiment of mr. Milosevic's aquittal is based not on "optimism" but rather on firm conviction that the President was never guilty as charged; if the Chief Prosecutor had a case, she would have made sure that it was presented long ago (instead, as the Prosecution falters, Carla del Ponte has resorted to an unfair war of attrition).
This "trial" has certainly lasted for far too long to convince anybody of Carla del Ponte's "case".
It is my recollection that some months ago she was announcing, (in an interview to an Italian paper?) that by this October the Prosecution would come up with decisive proof of Milosevic´s guilt. It is already mid-October and no visible progress has been made by the ICTY Prosecution.
Could someone kindly assist by confirming the date and source of Carla del Ponte's cocksure statement?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Wednesday October 15, 2003 at 6:21 am
GodfredYear after year del Ponte claims she will indict the leaders of the KLA by whenever but the indictments never materialse.
Various excuses have been given: the current favourite is "Lack of evidence".
With a pile of bodies three to four thousnd high and rising plus some quarter of a million displaced persons unable to return to their home in almost five years what more evidence does she need.
Carla del Ponte clearly had a "Lack of evidence" for the indictment of Milosevic but this did not stop her from proceeding.
Its staring us all in the face: SHOW TRIAL. Nobody gets acquitted at a show trial.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Wednesday October 15, 2003 at 7:22 am
Correction it was Louise Arbour who made the indictment during Nato's bombardment of Serbia. But this does not mean that del Ponte is obliged to continue with the indictment given "lack of evidence".
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Wednesday October 15, 2003 at 8:04 am
A SHOW TRIAL it is indeed - aimed at blaiming mr. Milosevic for "everything" and for the war over Kosovo in particular! But it would also be clear to all who wish to see for themselves, that this show went awry long ago - due to the determination and ability of mr. Milosevic to forward "the truth and nothing but the truth".The original Indictment against mr. Milosevic was prepared as you well know not by mrs. del Ponte, but by her equally hapless predecessor as an ICTY Chief Prosecutor, Canadian Louise Arbour (who wisely quit the job before the show began!). The Indictment dated 22 May, 1999 served as kind of cover for the NATO war of aggression against the F.R. of Yugoslavia (which you may justly call a "show war" - although the tragic consequences were indeed very real).
What mrs. del Ponte has done is merely adding "Croatia" and "Bosnia-Herzegovina" to the "evidence", sensing no doubt correctly, that "Kosovo" would not support a conviction of mr. Milosevic - and not knowing what else to do to succeed with a task that she so unwisely accepted.
I entirely agree with you that she ought to have indicted Hashim Thaqi and other Kosovo Albanian criminals long ago, - but even if she has failed to do her duty, why should we take it for granted that she is getting away with the "show"?
I would still appreaciate confirmation, that Carla del Ponte in fact was announcing, that the Procecution would provide decisive evidence against mr. Milosevic by this October...
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Wednesday October 15, 2003 at 8:18 am
FYI: Smearing of IAC et al comes into the open.D.C. undercover operations blown
Alexei Gorbulski
Brussels
Belgium - Wednesday October 15, 2003 at 8:49 am
Softly, softly Blair & Co redraw Europe’s boundariesAccording to the Financial Times which usually knows a thing or two:
“…the UN has frozen final status questions to allow time for war-fired emotions to subside and for Serbia to come to terms with the de facto loss of Kosovo.”
“ … Belgrade politicians are starting to concede Kosovo will never be recovered.”
“ … Kosovo has already been separated de facto from Serbia for more than four years. Second, Serbia lost its moral right to rule Kosovo through years of abuse of power culminating in ethnic cleansing. The same arguments do not apply elsewhere.”
That’s plain to see: The Albanians have been murdering, pillaging and ethnic cleansing for almost five years with impunity yet they don’t appear to have lost any moral rights?
Promises of EU membership must be made clear for ex Yugoslav states. “Of course, conditions must be met, including full co-operation with the international war crimes tribunal.”
Making an exception “of course” for the conduct of the Albanians, the real villains in this piece, who no matter how much under Nato’s protection they murder, pillage, ethnic cleanse, traffic in humans and in drugs get to steal and destroy whatever land and property they want.
Now we can see the purpose of this Trial of Milosevic. Someone must be shown to be responsible for this dramatic and extraordinary exception in international conduct: the Serbs and their leader Milosevic are to be the scapegoats. That’s why the KLA leaders are not on trial and never will be on trial at this disgusting farce called the ICTY: the International Cluster-bombers’ Travesty for Yugoslavia.
Remember the Inaugural Chief Prosecutor’s words on procedure: “Now that makes a much bigger impression on the public”. Now that’s what I call a show trial.
To be consistent: next year Blair will give Northern Ireland to the IRA or at least the two Counties with Catholic majorities: Or maybe his plan will be for Israel to be handed over to the Palestinians? That’s the Blair way to deal with terrorists - sometimes.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Wednesday October 15, 2003 at 8:51 am
I have just found the following information dated 21 August, 2003:ROME -- Thursday -- Hague Tribunal chief prosecutor Carla del Ponte has announced that the trial of Slobodan Milosevic should be concluded by late 2004 or early 2005.
It may have been on that occasion that the mrs. del Ponte was also announcing something to the effect, that "by this October (2003) the (ICTY) Prosecution would come up with decisive proof of Milosevic´s guilt"...
Anybody able to confirm - and supply a reference to mrs. del Ponte's "optimistic" statement? Or do I have to write the Chief Prosecutor, asking her to to verify herself?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Wednesday October 15, 2003 at 9:59 am
I have also found this recent stuff:"NEW YORK, October 10 (Tanjug) - The Hague tribunal chief prosecutor Carla del Ponte addressed the United Nations (UN) Security Council on Thursday and accused the Belgrade authorities of insufficiently cooperating with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), specifically, that they were withholding documents which comprise important evidence material.
Reporting on the ICTY work at the open session, del Ponte said she had a feeling the Belgrade authorities were trying to withhold key documents that might prove the involvement of the former authorities in crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the case against Slobodan Milosevic, and others. Del Ponte said she based her suspicions on the fact that over half of the 17 ICTY indictees still at large, including Ratko Mladic, were allegedly residing in Serbia and Montenegro."
How did Carla del Ponte manage to draw up the Indictment against mr. Milosevic without these "key documents"? I have a "feeling" bordering on "suspicion" that by the end of this month of October in spite of her own predictions and promises mrs. Carla del Ponte will still be seen as unable to prove the involvement of mr. Milosevic in crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina - and on that I'd willingly take a bet, Peter Taylor!
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Wednesday October 15, 2003 at 1:00 pm
Much of the evidence Carla has presented implicated Mladic and Karadzic in war crimes - NOT Milosevic. I'm afraid their game plan now has been to malign Karadzic and Mladic as much as possible, then to present them as Milosevic's stooges and underlings in the "grand criminal enterprise", and by syllogism, accuse Milosevic of "ordering" or abetting the same crimes.If they had ANY evidence, they would have presented it by now. The paperwork is distinctly against them, in the form of Milosevic's numerous orders AGAINST atrocities, and his push for a large number of peace plans when it comes to Bosnia.
And, if Milosevic can demonstrate that he simply HAD to help the Bosnian and Croatian Serbs with humanitarian aid, medicine, food, weapons, and financial support, to prevent total obliteration of these populations (he can do this by demonstrating extensive Croatian and Muslim atrocities against Serbs, and by making a clear connection between the recent regimes and their WWII predecessors), then he could come off as the moral victor in this show trial. We eagerly await the defense.
P M
USA - Wednesday October 15, 2003 at 1:40 pm
Here is an interesting report from today's sessionhttp://www.cij.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewReport&reportID=430&tribunalID=1&languageID=1
Keep in mind who wrote it!
Dan B
Canada - Wednesday October 15, 2003 at 2:11 pm
I am not sure that only repeating the use of the word Serbian, means fascism as P.M. stated in his post Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 6:52 pm
: "The repeated use of the word "Serbian" in front of a number of place names, such as Dalmatia, Dubrovnik, Kosovo, etc., particularly those in which the Serbian population was very small, does smack of rabid chauvinism at best if not fascism".There have been many places in Croatia named as Croatian: Croatian Leskovac, Croatian Dubica, Croatian Zagorje Croatian Kostajnica etc and nobody ever thought that this was chauvinism or fascism.
Why Serbian Radical Party claimed all of these above mentioned teritories as Serbian?
Mr. P.M. These days Kosovo do not have a single Serbian representative in Viena, There are no and there will be no any more Serbian representatives from Serbian Krajina (or as radicals said Banija, Kordun, Lika and Slavanoija)
Consequently tomorrow when Serbian population in Bosnia will have no its representatives or Serbian populatian - as it is in Kosovo and Krajina, would you someone who is trying to reclaim it name a fascist? (Like Pantelija is trying to) - Especialy as you said where the Serbian population is very small. (Don't worry P.M. If it is not very small there are forces who will make it so.)
Meanwhile it is worth reading a following document to see whether Dalmatia was given to Croatia or the other party was Serbia and Montenegro. Why Dalmatia has today very small or no Serbian population its up to Mr. P.M and Ms. Pantelija to think.
Primary Documents: Treaty of London, 26 April 1915
The primary Allied powers - Britain, France and Russia - were, by 1915, keen to bring neutral Italy into World War One on their side. Italy however drove a hard bargain, demanding extensive territorial concessions once the war had been won, including Trent, Southern Tyrol, Istria, Gorizia and Dalmatia. Despite the Allies' eventual agreement the terms of the secret treaty were to cause problems at the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. Since the Italian territorial demands included the Yugo-Slavic lands under Austria-Hungary, Italy needed to negotiate future borders with two of her wartime allies, Serbia and Montenegro; she did however refuse to negotiate with any delegate to Versailles who had served within an enemy government (including Austro-Hungarian deputies); she finally agreed to such negotiations however, under pressure from U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. Ultimately Italy was granted Trentino, Trieste, (the German-speaking) South Tyrol, and Istria. But Dalmatia was excluded, as was Fiume; so, too, were any colonial territories in Africa or Asia and any claim on Albania. Nationalists consequently argued that Italy had been robbed of its rightful gains.
Extracts from the Treaty of London, 26 April 1915
Article 1
A military convention shall be immediately concluded between the General Staffs of France, Great Britain, Italy, and Russia. This convention shall settle the minimum number of military forces to be employed by Russia against Austria-Hungary in order to prevent that Power from concentrating all its strength against Italy, in the event of Russia deciding to direct her principal effort against Germany...Article 2
On her part, Italy undertakes to use her entire resources for the purpose of waging war jointly with France, Great Britain, and Russia against all their enemies.Article 3
The French and British fleets shall render active and permanent assistance to Italy...Article 4
Under the Treaty of Peace, Italy shall obtain the Trentino, Cisalpine Tyrol with its geographical and natural frontier, as well as Trieste, the counties of Gorizia and Gradisca, all Istria as far as the Quarnero and including Volosca and the Istrian islands of Cherso and Lussin, as well as the small islands of Plavnik, Unie, Canidole, Palazzuoli, San Pietro di Nembi, Asinello, Gruica, and the neighbouring islets...Article 5
Italy shall also be given the province of Dalmatia within its present administrative boundaries...Article 6
Italy shall receive full sovereignty over Valona, the island of Saseno and surrounding territory...Article 7
Should Italy obtain the Trentino and Istria in accordance with the provisions ofArticle 4, together with Dalmatia and the Adriatic islands within the limits specified in
Article 5, and the Bay of Valona (
Article 6), and if the central portion of Albania is reserved for the establishment of a small autonomous neutralised State, Italy shall not oppose the division of Northern and Southern Albania between Montenegro, Serbia, and Greece...
Article 8
Italy shall receive entire sovereignty over the Dodecanese Islands which she is at present occupying.Article 9
Generally speaking, France, Great Britain, and Russia recognise that,... in the event of total or partial partition of Turkey in Asia, she ought to obtain a just share of the Mediterranean region adjacent to the province of Adalia...Article 11
Italy shall receive a share of any eventual war indemnity corresponding to their efforts and her sacrifices.Article 13
In the event of France and Great Britain increasing their colonial territories in Africa at the expense of Germany, those two Powers agree in principle that Italy may claim some equitable compensation...Article 14
Great Britain undertakes to facilitate the immediate conclusion, under equitable conditions, of a loan of at least 50,000,000 pounds...Article 16
The present arrangement shall be held secret.Source: Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, London, 1920, LI Cmd. 671, Miscellaneous No. 7, 2-7.
Pero Peric
Canada - Wednesday October 15, 2003 at 5:23 pm
Threatening "the gravest legal consequences," Bosnia's top international official on Wednesday gave Bosnian Serbs six months to reveal the fate of thousands of Muslims missing since the 1995 Srebrenica massacre
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Wednesday October 15, 2003 at 5:31 pm
Wait a minute. Am I completely out of the loop? I know I'm very, very busy, but how did I miss that, according to the above link, 5,000 bodies were found at Srebrenica? When and where? Does anybody know the details? I thought it was many, many fewer than that figure. Thanks.
Anna P
California - Wednesday October 15, 2003 at 11:25 pm
"The Bosnian Serb authorities came up with an interim report, which was rejected by the court and described by international officials in Bosnia as a disgrace. It minimized the number of victims and hinted that the victims had likely killed each other."
1 2
Canada - Thursday October 16, 2003 at 12:40 am
October 15th at the Haguehttp://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg101503.htm
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Thursday October 16, 2003 at 12:53 am
Anna P,Nobody found 5,000 bodies in Srebrenica.
What is happening in that AP story is that they can't find the bodies, therefore they can't prove that there was a huge massacre of thousands of people, and so they are trying to force the Serbs to confess to one.
Check out this link
Here's a better link:
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/issa091803.htm
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Thursday October 16, 2003 at 12:59 am
Dan B.,What are you trying to demonstrate with that CIJ article from Judith Armatta?
I watched Milanovic's testimony and I didn't get the impression that "Slobodan Milosevic was up to his eyebrows in the war in Croatia" or that "Mr. Milosevic was not 'just' altruistically supporting his brother Serbs. He was directing them in an enterprise which he designed, whether alone or with others."
Did you post the correct article? Or do you consider it interesting because you think that we can use it to get Ms. Armatta committed to an insane asylum? :)
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Thursday October 16, 2003 at 1:18 am
P M says:"then he (Milosevic) could come off as the moral victor in this show trial"
Do you not think that he is already the moral victor in DER PROZES?
ivko rig
Monteserbia - Thursday October 16, 2003 at 7:27 am
"If they had ANY evidence (implicating Milosevic in war crimes in "Bosnia-Herzegovina" or in "Srebreniza" in particular), then they would have presented it by now," writes PM (October 15, 2003 at 1:00 pm).Indeed, - and Carla del Ponte would hardly have publicly vented her "suspicion" that "Belgrade authorities were trying to withhold key documents that might prove the involvement".
On the other hand: Why would the Chief Prosecutor promise to come up with decisive evidence by this October, now within a fortnight, if she thought that this had been presented already - or if convinced, that she would never be able to produce such evidence against mr. Milosevic anyway?
Am I wrong in assuming that Carla del Ponte not so long ago (in August?) told an (Italian?) paper, that she would come back and wow us all with new evidence by this October? Am I wrong in assuming, that if she does not manage to do so then there will be no need for mr. Milosevic to defend himself any further - and that PM should rather await the dismissal of the his 'case' and release from prison?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Thursday October 16, 2003 at 8:35 am
Don't kid yourself: Milosevic is getting a life sentence, even if it rests on a flimsy charge like "he should have known about the destruction of cultural monuments" or some such thing. The media hype is so incredible that acquittal or even anything short of life sentence is unimaginable.
P M
USA - Thursday October 16, 2003 at 9:48 am
"The media hype is so incredible, that anything short of life sentence is unimaginable," writes PM, - making me wonder what to expect if the hype were credible instead?Yet it is nonsense that mr. Milosvic could be sentenced on the basis of 'flimsy' charges as he is suggesting.
Anyway, - PMs prediction may somehow be justified by people's behaviour in the USA? My experience from Denmark is, that most of us fail to take interest in the "trial", - but if people think about it they have no trust whatever in the "hype".
"Iraq" (which wasn't exactly foreseen at the time of the attack against F.R. of Yugoslavia, although "Kosovo" was obviously kind of a test case) has contributed nothing to ordinary peoples trust in 'international' justice. The Chief Prosecutor would surely have to do a better job than envisaged by PM - and maybe mrs. del Ponte - to save the ICTYs reputation (it is clearly too late for that of her own).
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Thursday October 16, 2003 at 10:02 am
Godfred: we shall see what we shall see. I, too, agree that Carla *might* have made a plausible case for some sort of responsibility over Kosovo. However, when they did this insane fusion of indictments (and who had the bright idea of filing indictments for Croatia and Bosnia again? A: Carla!), with their mad idea of some enterprise, they placed the death seal on any kind of possible justice. Claude Jorda will go down as one of the biggest idiots in legal history - second to Carla. What we are now seeing is 100% show. And btw, has anybody else noticed that Carla no longer makes her coiffured appearances to Milo's trial? It seems she is 'collecting crucial evidence' and throwing fits over Mladic while Nice does the dirty work.
P M
USA - Thursday October 16, 2003 at 10:53 am
Yes, - "we shall see what we shall see." I have been secretly working on a 'preview' of the ICTYs decision though, - and cannot possibly twist it into a credible "guilty" verdict over "Kosovo".Can anyone assist here?
("Croatia" and "Bosnia" are indeed show trials as far as Milosevic is concerned, we can agree on that. Solely "Kosovo" matters).
Then of course I am no lawyer, - much less a judge. I do not however have strings attached either - as has Judge Richard May and his fellow judges!
I now sincerely believe that if within this October, 2003 mrs. del Ponte hasn't come up with some strikingly convincing ('new')evidence (the nature of which I am admittedly unable to even imagine) she'll have had it (as far as I can see).
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Thursday October 16, 2003 at 1:39 pm
Thanks, Andy.That article sure makes it sound like 5,000 dead at Srebrenica was a fact, not conjecture or, worse yet, a deliberate fabrication. I'm so sick of articles like that where they simply state phony "facts" as though they were not in question. How can you blame Joe Public for assuming they ARE facts after reading something written that way and accepting Serbian blame as justified? I'm so tired of gagging at the media...
Anna P
California - Thursday October 16, 2003 at 2:59 pm
MODERATOR PLEASE SHORTEN THIS PAGE, MANY CAN'T READ IT!!!
Thanks
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Thursday October 16, 2003 at 7:34 pm
Carla is an ongoing loser but not an idiot , she perfectly know she's got no case with President Milosevic , she assumed that by been named head prosecutor for the ICTY was going to be her "non plus ultra" as far as her law career , but my dear Carla "it's always a but" assumption is the mother of all fuck ups , at the end you will escape world scrutiny but you CAN NOT escape from your own conscience , do yourself a favor , put everything back into perspective according to law , two years of clowning is enough embarrasment for anybody , wrap it out and send everybody home . Un Bacio Ciao¡
M P
Rep de Panama